IMTIYAZ MURTAZA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1721/2001 is filed by Vichitra Singh against his conviction under Sections 302/149 I. P. C. for which he has been sentenced to death. He is further convicted under Section 147 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, under Section 148 IPC, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years, under Sections 307/149 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and under Section 27 Arms Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years.

2. Criminal Appeal No. 1829/2001 is filed by the appellants Bahadur Singh, Mohan Singh, Harjit Singh, Anoop Singh, Sukhdeo Singh and Jagwant Singh against their conviction in S. T. No. 1213/99, S. T. No. 1214/99, S. T. No. 1216/99 and S. T. No. 1217/99. The appellants Bahadur Singh, Mohan Singh, Harjit Singh, Anoop Singh, Sukhdeo Singh and Jagwant Singh are sentenced to imprisonment for life under Sections 302/149 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment, one year under Section 147 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and under Section 148 IPC and 7 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307/149 IPC.

3. Appellants Mohan Singh and Harjit Singh are further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 27 Arms Act.

4. Appellant Anoop Singh is further sentenced for two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 25 Arms Act.

5. Both the appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 24- 5-2001 passed by Sri Mohd. Tahir, Addl. Sessions Judge, Meerut in S. T. No. 1213/99 and S. T. No. 1215/99 and they are disposed of together.

6. The brief facts of the case are that on 14-8-1999 there was a Bhog ceremony of the wife of one Gurmukh Singh, P. W. 3. The complainant Balvinder Singh his brother Baj Singh, the sons of Baj Singh namely Lakhvendra Singh and Harjit Singh, the wife of Baj Singh, Smt. Baksheesh Kaur and Gurmed Singh and Karnail Singh and others participated in the Bhog ceremony. Appellants Vichitra Singh, Bahadur Singh, Mohan Singh, Jagwant Singh, Harjit Singh, Sukhdeo Singh and Anoop Singh had also attended the Bhog ceremony and all of them were armed with fire-arm. There was enmity between the parties on account of dispute of land. The Bhog ceremony was attended by several persons. The complainant, his brother Baj Singh, his nephew Lakhvendra Singh and Harjit Singh and one Gurmej Singh were returning on foot at about 2. 30 p. m. after taking the meal in Bhog ceremony, the appellants Vichitra Singh, Mohan Singh, Sukhdeo Singh, Anoop Singh and Bahadur Singh in a Jeep and Jagwant Singh and Harjit Singh in an Ambassador Car came from behind and chased them. The appellants Vichitra Singh had rifle, Bahadur Singh, Mohan Singh, Jagwant Singh and Harjit Singh had guns with them. The appellants Sukhdeo Singh and Anoop Singh had Tamanchas with them. All the accused started firing indiscriminately. The fires struck Baj Singh, Lakhvendra Singh and Harjit Singh, who all succumbed to their injuries on the spot. The complainant and Gurmej Singh saved their lives by hiding themselves behind the bushes. The accused persons challenged that if anybody would dare to come forward or lodge the report at the police station or give evidence, he would also be done to death. The persons who were participating in the Bhog ceremony ran away as they were terrorized. Thereafter accused persons proceeded towards the Dera of the deceased persons by car and jeep and made a raid on the Dera and started firing on Lakhvendra Singhs son Parvender aged about six months, but the wife of Lakhvendra Singh Smt. Harjendra Kaur saved the child by hiding him inside the house. The accused persons had created a terror on the Dera. The report was lodged at the police station by Balvinder Singh. Head Moharrir Kripal Singh had prepared the chik FIR Ext. Ka-10 and had also made an entry in the General Diary regarding the registration of the case vide Ext. Ka- 11. The investigation of the case was taken up by Station Officer V. K. Bhati, who was attending a crime meeting at Meerut at the time of lodging of the First Information Report. Sub- Inspector Yogendra Singh had reached the place of occurrence alongwith the police force and complainant Balvinder Singh. In the meantime Station Officer V. K. Bhati had also reached on the spot. On the direction of V. K. Bhati, Sub-Inspector Yogendra Singh prepared the inquest reports on the dead-

bodies of the deceased persons. The inquest report of deceased Baj Singh is Ext. Ka-13 and its relevant papers, challan lash, photo lash, letter to Chief Medical Officer and letter to R. I. are Exts. Ka-24 to 27 respectively. The inquest report of the deceased Lakhvinder Singh is Ext. Ka-28 and its relevant papers, Challan lash, letter to Chief Medical Officer, letter to R. I. are Exts. Ka-29 to 32 respectively. The inquest report regarding the deceased Harjit Singh is Ext. Ka-33 and its relevant papers, challan lash, letter to R. I. and letter to C. M. O. are Ext. Ka-34 to Ext. Ka-36 respectively. After completing the inquest proceedings the dead- bodies were separately sealed and sent for post-mortem examination through constable Vashudeva Singh and Surendra Singh, Sub-Inspector Yogendra Singh also seized two fired cartridges of 315 bore and nine fired cartridges of 12 bore from the spot and prepared their seizure memo Ext. Ka-20. Blood stained and plain earth were also seized and seizure memo was prepared as Exts. Ka- 20 to 22. Sub-Inspector Yogendra Singh had also visited the Dera of deceased Baj Singh alongwith Station Officer V. K. Bhati and had seized one fired cartridge of 315 bore and four fired cartridges of 12 bore. The site- plan regarding the spot is Ext. Ka-40.

7. The police had arrested Vichitra Singh and Bahadur Singh on 14-8-1999 and from the possession of accused Vichitra Singh one rifle 315 bore bearing No. AB 9610587 Ext. 31 and three live cartridges of 12 bore Exts. 36 to 39 were recovered from the possession of accused Bahadur Singh. The recovery memo regarding these recoveries was prepared as Ex. Ka-36. Both the accused were challaned under Section 25/27 Arms Act. The police had arrested Anoop Singh on 18-8-1999 and one country made pistol of 12 bore and two live cartridges and two empty cartridges Exts. 41 to 42 were recovered from his possession. Recovery memo Ext. Ka-37 was prepared and he was also challaned under Section 25/27 Arms Act. The police had arrested Harjit Singh and Mohan Singh on 18-8-1999 and one DBBL Gun Bearing No. A-4200 D/3, Ext. 45 and 4 live cartridges of 12 bore Ext. 46 to 49 were recovered from the possession of accused Harjit Singh and from the possession of Mohan Singh a DBBL Gun Bearing No. 32800-A/9, 12 bore Ext. 50 and three cartridges of 12 bore Ext-51 to 53 were recovered and recovery memo was prepared as Ext-38 and they were challaned under Section 25/27 Arms Act. On 23-8-1999 Jagwant Singh was arrested by the police and he had told the police that the DBBL gun which was used by him in the murder was handed over by him to his brother Balbir Singh and Balbir Singh was arrested on 10-9- 1999 and recovered one DBBL Gun 12 bore, bearing No. 17679-91 Ext. 1 and three live cartridges of 12 bore Ex. 3, Ext. 54 and Ext. 55 from the room of his Dera were recovered and he was challaned under Section 25/27 Arms Act.

8. Dr. M. K. Gulati had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead-bodies of Harjit Singh on 15-8- 1999 and found following ante-mortem injuries :

(1) Gun shot wound of entry 3. 0 x 2. 5 cm. x chest cavity deep over left side chest 5. 0 cm. above from left nipple at 1 Oclock position. Blackening present around the wound in an area of 4. 0 x 3. 0 cm. Margin of wound inverted. Direction of wound inward transverse.

(2) Multiple gun shot wound of entry in an area of 32. 0 cm. x 11. 0 cm. on over right side of lower part of neck, from and outer of right side chest and upper part of right upper limb size of wound varying from 1. 0 x 1. 0 cm. x muscle deep to 0. 5 cm x 0. 5 cm. x skin deep. Margin of wounds inverted. Direction of wounds inward and upper ward.

(3) Gun shot wound of entry 3. 0 cm. x 2. 0 cm. x bone deep over inner side of right upper arm 7. 0 cm. below top of right shoulder. Burning present in an area of 4. 0 x 3. 0 cm. around the wound. Margins of wound inverted. Direction of wound backward and transverse.

(4) Gun shot wound of Exit 8. 0 x 5. 0 cm. x bone deep over back of right upper arm. 7. 0 cm. below tip of right shoulder, underneath bone fractured. Wound communicating with Injury No. 3. Margins of wound everted.

(5) Multiple gun shot wound of entry in an area of 18. 0 x 7. 0 cm. over front of right side of abdomen lower part size of wounds varying 1. 0 x 1. 0 cm. x muscle deep to 0. 5 cm. x 0. 5 cm. x skin deep. Margins of wounds inverted. Direction of wound inward and upward.

9. On 15-8-1999 post-mortem examination on the dead-body of Baj Singh was conducted and following ante-mortem injuries were found :

(1) Gun shot wound of Entry 2. 0 x 2. 0 cm. x bone deep over right side face 2. 0 cm. below right eye. Burning present around the wound in an area of 3. 0 x 3. 0 cm. Margins of wound inverted. Direction of wound backward and downward and to left side. Underneath right side maxilla and mandible fractured.

(2) Gun shot wound of Exit 5. 0 x 4. 0 cm. x neck cavity deep over left side of neck upper part 2. 0 cm. below left ear. Margin of wound everted communicating with Injury No. 1 underneath neck vessels muscles esophagus and tracheas lacerated.

(3) Lacerated wound 3. 0 x 3. 0 cm. x bone deep over back of left thumb middle part.

(4) Multiple gun shot wounds of entry in an area 16. 0 x 10. 0 cm. over right side of chest from upper part extending upto upper part of right upper limb front size of wounds 1. 0 x 1. 0 cm. x muscle deep to 0. 5 cm. x 0. 5 cm. x skin deep. Margins of wounds inverted. Direction of wounds inwards and horizontal.

(5) Traumatic-swelling 5. 0 x 5. 0 cm. over from and middle of right upper arm, underneath bone fractured.

10. On 15-8-1999 post-mortem examination on the dead-body of Lakhvinder Singh was conducted and following ante-mortem injuries were found :

(1) Gun shot wound of entry 6. 0 x 5. 0 cm. x chest cavity deep over front of chest lower part 11. 0 cm. below sternal notch. Underneath VI, VII, VIII ribs on both sides and lower part of sternum fractured margins of wound inverted. Burning present in an area of 7. 0 x 6. 0 cm. around the wound. Direction of wound backward and horizontal.

(2) Multiple gun shot wounds of entry 14. 0 x 10. 0 cm. area over front and outer aspect of left side abdomen size of wound 1. 0 x 1. 0 cm. x cavity deep to 0. 5 cm. x 0. 5 cm. x muscle deep. Direction of wound inwards, backwards and to right side. Inverted margins.

11. The fired cartridges recovered from both the spots and the weapons recovered from the possession of the accused persons were sent for expert examination by the Investigating Officer. After examination of those articles the Ballistic Expert sent his report which is Ext. Ka-4. According to the Ballistic expert the disputed fired cartridges of 315 bore marked as Ec-5, Ec-15 and Ec-16 by him were found to have been fired from the rifle marked by him as 1/2000 (Ext. 31), allegedly recovered from the possession of accused Vichitra Singh. According to the Expert four fired disputed cartridges of 12 bore marked by him as Ec-2 and 2 disputed cartridges of 12 bore marked by him as Ec-4 and Ec-13 were found to have been fired from DBBL Gun marked by him as 6/2000 (Ext. 45) allegedly recovered from the possession of accused Harjit Singh. The fired disputed cartridges marked by the Export as Ec-3 and Ec-6 were found to have been fired from the DBBL Gun marked as 4/2000 (Ext. 50) allegedly recovered from the possession of accused Mohan Singh. Another fired disputed cartridges of 12 bore marked by the Expert as Ec-25 and Ec-26 were found to have been fired from the country made pistol, marked by the Expert as 3/2000 (Ext. 40) which is alleged to have been recovered from the possession of accused Anoop Singh. The fired disputed cartridge of 12 bore marked by the Expert as Ec-4 could not be said to have been fired from SBBL Gun marked as 2/2000 (Ext. 35) for lack of details. This SBBL Gun has been alleged to have been recovered from the possession of accused Bahadur Singh. According to the Expert the fired disputed

cartridges of 12 bore marked by him as Ec-10 and Ec-12 could not be said to have been fired from the DBBL Gun marked by him as 5/2000 (Ext. 1) for want of details. This gun has been alleged to have been recovered from the possession of accused Balbir Singh, alleged to have been used by accused Jagwant Singh in the murder.

12. After completing the investigation and other formalities the Investigating Officer Sri V. K. Bhati submitted charge-sheet under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 307 of the IPC against accused Vichitra Singh, Jagwant Singh, Mohan Singh, Anoop Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Harjit Singh and Bahadur Singh which is Ext. Ka-45.

13. The investigation of case Crime Nos. 245, 246, 248 of 1999 was conducted by Sub-Inspector Shambhoo Dayal. He had arrested the accused Vichitra Singh and Bahadur Singh. The memo of arrest of the accused is Ext. Ka-46 and site plan regarding the case of arrest of accused Anoop Singh is Ext. Ka-51. He had obtained the sanction for the prosecution of the accused by the District Magistrate, Meerut. The sanction orders are Ext. Ka-47, Ka-48 and Ka-52. The charge-sheet against the accused Vichitra Singh, Bahadur Singh and Anoop Singh under Sections 25/27 Arms Act were submitted which are Ext. Ka-49, Ka-50 and Ka-53 respectively.

14. The investigation regarding Case Crime No. 249/99 and 250/99 under Sections 25/27 Arms Act was conducted by S. I. Satya Pal Vats who had arrested the accused Mohan Singh and Harjit Singh and prepared the site plan Ext. Ka-54 and after obtaining sanction for prosecution from District Judge, Meerut he submitted the charge-sheet Ext. Ka-57 and Ka-58 respectively.

15. Sub-Inspector Satya Pal Vats had also investigated Case Crime No. 246/99 under Sections 25/27 Arms Act against the accused Balbir Singh. Site plan regarding his arrest is Ext. Ka-59 and after obtaining sanction for prosecution from District Magistrate, Meerut he submitted charge-sheet against Balbir Singh under Sections 25/27 Arms Act which is Ext. Ka-61.

16. The case was committed to Court of Sessions in the usual manner and in order to prove its case the prosecution has examined 17 witnesses. P. W. 1 Balbinder Singh (complainant and is an eye-witness), P. W. 2 Gurmet Singh (an eye-witness), P. W. 3 Gurmukh Singh, P. W. 4 Smt. Baksheesh Kaur is the wife of deceased Baj Singh and mother of deceased Lakhvinder Singh and Harjit Singh. She has seen the occurrence. P. W. 5 Smt. Harjinder Kaur is the wife of the deceased Lakhvinder Singh. She has stated that accused persons raided her Dera, Vichitra Singh and Harjit Singh had fired on her and her child. P. W. 6 Bargad Singh had seen the accused persons raiding the Dera of Baj Singh. P. W. 7 Hira Singh is an eye-

witness of arrest and recovery of fire-arm from the possession of Vichitra Singh and Bahadur Singh. P. W. 8 is Dr. M. K. Gulati who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead-bodies. P. W. 9 is Head Constable Kiran Pal Singh who had prepared the chick report and made entries in the G. D. regarding the registration of murder case and case under Sections 25/27 Arms Act against the accused Vichitra Singh and Bahadur Singh. P. W. 10 is constable Shiv Raj Singh who had prepared the chick report and made entries in the G. D. regarding registration of case under Sections 25/27 Arms Act against the accused Mohan Singh and Harjit Singh. P. W. 11 is constable Omveer Singh who had prepared the chick report regarding registration of the case under Sections 25/27 Arms Act against the accused Anoop Singh and Balbir Singh. P. W. 12 is constable Surendra Singh who had taken the dead-bodies to the mortuary for post-mortem examination. P. W. 13 is S. I. Yogendra Singh who had prepared the inquests on the dead- bodies. He had also seized two fired cartridges of 315 bore and 9 fired cartridges of 12 Bore. Blood stained and plain earth from the place of occurrence. He has also seized one fired cartridge of 12 bore from the Dera of Baj Singh. He has also arrested the accused Vichitra Singh, Bahadur Singh, Anoop Singh, Mohan Singh and Harjit Singh with the help of Station House Officer V. K. Bhati and other police personnel. P. W. 14 is Sri V. K. Bhati who conducted the investigation of the case P. W. 15, is S. I. Shambhoo Dayal who had conducted the investigation of case under Arms Act against the accused Vichitra Singh, Bahadur Singh and Anoop Singh. P. W. 16 is S. I. S. P. Vats who conducted the investigation under Arms Act against the accused Mohan Singh, Harjit Singh and Balbir Singh. P. W. 17 Ram Asrey Pandey is the ballistic expert had examined the fired cartridges seized from the spot and fire-arm recovered from the possession of the accused persons.

17. In the appeal we have re-examined P. W. 14, Sri V. K. Bhati, Investigating Officer and P. W. 17 Ram Ashrey Pandey and after their re-examination statement of accused under Section 313 Cr. P. C. was recorded.

18. In all 17 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, P. W. 1 Balwinder Singh, P. W. 2 Gurmeet Singh P. W. 3 Gurmukh Singh and P. W. 4 Smt. Baksheesh Kaur are said to be eye-witnesses of the occurrence. P. W. 1 Balwinder Singh is the complainant of this case. In the examination-in-chief he has supported the FIR version. He has stated that he had participated in the Bhog ceremony at the Dera of Gurmukh Singh. He has stated that deceased Baj Singh, Lakhvendra Singh and Harjit Singh had participated in the Bhog ceremony held at the Dera of Gurmukh Singh. He has also stated of the presence of accused Vichitra Singh, Bahadur Singh, Mohan Singh, Jagwant Singh, Harjeet Singh, Sukhdeo Singh and Anoop Singh in the Bhog ceremony. He has stated that there was enmity of the accused persons with the deceased regarding the dispute of land. He has stated that when they were returning after the Bhog ceremony Vichitra Singh, Mohan Singh, Harjit Singh, Jagwant Singh and Bahadur Singh had opened fire indiscriminately and the fire of accused hit Baj Singh, Lakhvendra Singh and Harjit Singh who succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Accused persons had also threatened that if any body would give evidence against them they would also be done to death. Thereafter the accused persons rushed towards the Dera of Baj Singh by jeep and car and fired upon the child of Lakhvendra Singh but he was saved by his mother. Thereafter he and Gurmeet Singh went to the police station and lodged the report. He has proved the FIR as Ext. Ka-1. In the cross-examination he has stated that there was animosity between the parties with regard to a piece of land. He has stated that the disputed land was purchased by Vichitra Singh, Bhagwant Singh Balraj Singh and Guru Lal on the basis of forget sale-deed. They had purchased this land from Panna Lal. He has stated that this land was in the possession of the accused persons and he has no knowledge whether any case with regard to this land was pending in the Court or not. He has stated that Bhog ceremony was in the house of Gurmukh Singh and place of occurrence was 150 steps away from the house. He has denied that he had not attended the Bhog ceremony. He has stated that his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer at the police station. He has further stated that on the day of lodging of the report Vichitra Singh and Bahadur Singh were arrested. He has also stated that one Baksheesh Singh was also brought to the police station. As he was not an accused in the present case he was released by the police. He has denied that Baksheesh Singh was brought alongwith his licened rifle and gun and subsequently his gun and rifle were seized and Baksheesh Singh was released. He has stated that the accused persons had fired indiscriminately and was unable to tell the exact number of shots made by rifle and gun. He has stated that all the accused persons had surrounded the deceased and then fired.

19. P. W. 2 is Gurmeet Singh. He has stated that on 14-8-1999 there was a Bhog ceremony at the house of Gurmukh Singh. He had gone to attend the Bhog ceremony alongwith Baj Singh, Lakhvendra Singh, Harjit Singh, Balbinder Singh, Karnail Singh and Smt. Baksheesh Kaur. Several persons have attended the Bhog ceremony. Accused Vichitra Singh, Mohan Singh, Jagwant Singh, Harjit Singh, Anoop Singh, Sukhdeo Singh and Bahadur Singh also attended the Bhog ceremony. These persons came in a jeep and Ambassador Car. Out of these persons Vichitra Singh had a rifle, Mohan Singh, Jagwant Singh and Harjit Singh had D. B. B. L. gun and Bahadur Singh was armed with single barrel gun. He has stated that they had left the house of Gurmukh Singh after taking food at 2. 15 p. m. Baj Singh, Lakhvendra Singh, Harjit Singh, Balbinder Singh, Karnail Singh were alongwith him and Smt. Bakhsheesh Kaur was behind them. They were proceeding on foot towards the Dera of Baj Singh. After they had covered a distance of about 150 steps, suddenly a jeep and ambassador car stopped behind them and accused persons came out of the vehicles. The accused persons surrounded them and started firing. The shots hit Baj Singh, Lakhvendra Singh and Harjit Singh and all of them died on the spot. He also stated that he alongwith Balwinder Singh, Karnail Singh hide themselves behind the bushes. He has further stated that after killing the deceased the accused had threatened them that if any one lodge the report or give evidence he would also be killed. All of them then went towards the Dera of Baj Singh. Several persons had collected. He has further stated that when he reached the Dera of Baj Singh they came to know that accused had gone there to kill the son of Lakhvendra Singh but he was saved by his mother. He had gone alongwith Balwinder Singh for lodging the report. He has further stated that he has lodged the report against Anoop Singh, Sukhdeo Singh, Sajjan Singh, Gajjan Singh and wife of Anoop Singh for registration of forged sale-deed. This report was given on 11-8-1999 at police station Kithore. He has further stated that he had given a report regarding the theft of stamp papers against Mohan Singh and Vichitra Singh in the Court of S. D. M. He has further stated that these applications were given by Baj Singh through him.

He has stated that his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer at 11. 30 p. m. on the date of occurrence.

20. P. W. 3 is Gurmukh Singh. He is a star witness for the prosecution. He has stated that on 14-8-1999 there was Bhog ceremony of his wife. All the accused had attended the Bhog and they had their licence weapons. Vichitra Singh was armed with rifle, Harjit Singh was armed with DBBL Gun, Jawant Singh was armed with 12 bore DBBL Gun, Mohan Singh was armed with DBBL Gun, Bahadur Singh was armed with single barrel gun and Jagwant Singh was armed with 12 bore DBBL gun. The occurrence took place at 2. 30 p. m. when his family members were taking their food and he was busy in looking after his guests. He has stated that those who were serving food during the Bhog ceremony included the deceased Lakhwinder Singh and Harjit Singh. He has further stated that Bakshish Kaur wife of the deceased Baj Singh, Karnail Singh, Gurmed Singh, Balvendra Singh, brother of the deceased Baj Singh had also attended the Bhog ceremony. After taking the food Baj Singh, Bakshish Kaur, Karnail Singh and Gurmed Singh had left the place. He has stated that both Harjit Singh and Lakhvendra Singh had followed them and they had not taken their meal. When he was busy in his work he heard the sound of firing and he had seen from the gate that some people were firing. They were Vichitra Singh, Harjit Singh, Jagwant Singh, Mohan Singh, Bahadur Singh, Anoop Singh and Sukhdeo Singh. Accused Sukhdeo Singh and Anoop Singh were armed with small weapons, which he could not see. The accused were firing on the persons who were lying on the ground. He has also stated that he went to the field and found Baj Singh and his two sons Lakhwinder Singh and Harjit Singh lying dead. The accused persons escaped on car and jeep. This occurrence was witnessed by Karnail Singh, Gumed Singh, Balvinder Singh, Swaran Singh and Baksheesh Kaur. In the cross-examination he has stated that his wife had died due to jaundice. He has stated that his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer and he had informed the Investigating Officer that Lakhwinder Singh and Harjit Singh had not taken their meal, but he could not tell as to why this fact is not mentioned in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. He has stated that he has seen from his house that the police had arrived at the place of occurrence at about 7. 30 p. m. The police had not visited his house and none of his family member was interrogated by the Investigating Officer. He has further stated that after ten days of the occurrence he was admitted in a Nursing Home at Delhi as he had fallen ill. The police had not interrogated any person from house of Baba Birsa Singh. He has stated that he had informed the Investigating Officer that the accused Vichitra Singh and Harjit Singh were firing on the deceased who were lying on the ground, but he could not tell the reason why this fact was not recorded in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. He has stated that his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 31-8- 1999. He has stated that he had informed the Investigating Officer about the specific weapons of the accused persons, but he could not tell the reason why this is not mentioned in his statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C.

21. P. W. 4 is Bakshish Kaur. She has stated that deceased Baj Singh was his husband and she is mother of deceased Harjit Singh and Lakhwinder Singh. She has stated that on the date of occurrence she alongwith her husband Baj Singh, Balvinder Singh, Gurmej Singh, Karnail Singh were returning after taking meal in the Bhog ceremony. She has stated that Lakhvinder Singh and Harjit Singh were also following them and they had not taken their meal. She has stated that accused persons had followed them in a car and jeep and she hide herself behind the bush. She was about 25 steps behind from her husband and sons. The accused persons had started firing on Baj Singh, Lakhvinder Singh and Harjit Singh. She has stated that due to firing her husband and sons died on the spot. Vichitra Singh was armed with rifle, Mohan Singh, Harjit and Jagwant Singh were armed with DBBL gun, Bahadur Singh was armed with single barrel gun, Sukhdeo Singh and Anoop Singh were armed with country made pistols. This occurrence took place 150 yards away from the Dera of Gurmukh Singh. This occurrence was also witnessed by Sukhvinder Singh, Gurmukh Singh, Mej Singh, Kulwant Singh, Darshan Singh and Swaran Singh. The accused had fired upon Gurmej Singh, but he hide himself behind the bush. Gurmej Singh alongwith Karnail Singh and Balvinder Singh had also threatened them. She has further stated that thereafter accused went towards her house. In the cross- examination she has stated that she had gone to attend the Bhog ceremony at about 10. 30 a. m. and after taking the meal they were returning returned around 2. 30 p. m. Lakhvinder and Harjit had not taken their meal. The Investigating Officer had recorded her statement but in that statement she had not disclosed to the Investigating Officer that Lakhvinder and Harjit had not taken their meal. She has stated that Vichitra Singh had fired three shots from his rifle and all the shots had hit her husband Baj Singh. She has stated that the Investigating Officer had met her after 12 days of the occurrence.

22. P. W. 5 is Harjinder Kaur. She has stated that on the date of occurrence her father-in-law, Baj Singh, mother-in-law Bakshish Kaur, husband Lakhvinder Singh, brother-in-law Harjit Singh and brother Gurmej Singh alongwith Balvinder Singh and Karnail Singh had gone to attend the Bhog ceremony of the wife of Gurmukh Singh. She was in the house alongwith her children. She has stated that on the date of occurrence at about 3. 00 p. m. she was standing in her house and her child Perminder was in her arms. One jeep and car came there. Vichitra Singh and other accused persons came out of the car. They started abusing. Vichitra Singh was armed with rifle and rest of accused persons were armed with weapons including guns. Vichitra Singh threatened her and he alongwith Harjit Singh fired. She went inside the room and bolted the door. After this she had heard two shots of fire. When the accused had come to her house at that time Dalip Singh and Pargat Singh were standing outside her house. Thereafter these accused persons went away and her brothers Gurmej and Balvinder Singh came and they informed that her husband, father-in-law and brother-in-law have been shot dead. She has stated that she had informed Gurmej that Vichitra Singh and Harjit Singh had fired at her and her son. In the cross-examination she has stated that her statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer after 12 days of the occurrence. She had stated that she had informed the Investigating Officer that Vichitra Singh had exclaimed that he would finish the entire generation of Baj Singh. She could not tell the reason why this is not mentioned by the Investigating Officer in her statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. She had stated that Pargat Singh is her brother-in-law and Dilip Singh is father of her sister-in-law Gurvinder Kaur. She has stated that all her family members had gone to the house of Gurmukh Singh at about 10. 30 a. m. She had stated that she had informed the Investigating Officer that when several accused persons had come to her house she was standing in the chowk of her house alongwith her son.

23. P. W. 6 is Pargat Singh. He has stated that on 14-8-1999 at about 2. 45 p. m. he was present near the house of deceased Baj Singh alongwith Dilip Singh, Vichitra Singh, Harjit Singh, Jagwant, Singh, Bahadur Singh, Mohan Singh, Anoop Singh and Sukhdeo Singh came in a car and a jeep. Vichitra Singh was armed with rifle, Harjit Singh was armed with DBBL gun, Jagwant Singh was armed with DBBL gun, Mohan Singh was armed with DBBL gun, Bahadur Singh was armed with single barrel gun and Anoop Singh and Sukhdeo Singh were armed with country made pistols. Vichitra Singh and Harjit Singh had fired at Harjinder Kaur and her children and they had stated that they would destroy the seeds of Baj Singh. The shots fired by Vichitra Singh and Harjit Singh did not hit Harjinder Kaur and her child. She went inside her room and bolted it from inside. Harjinder Kaur is the wife of Lakhvinder Singh who is the son of Baj Singh. He has further stated that on 10-9-1999 when he was at his house alongwith his father Balkar Singh at about 7, 7-15 p. m. the police and accused Balbir Singh came and they went to the house of Balbir Singh and Balbir Singh went inside his house and he got recovered one DBBL gun and three live cartridges and he had disclosed that Jagwant Singh had used this gun for killing Baj Singh and his sons. The police had prepared the recovery memo of the gun which is Ext. Ka-5. The gun and cartridges were opened in the Court and this witness had recognized the gun. He has stated that his statement was recorded after twelve days of the occurrence. He has stated that he had informed the Investigating Officer that Harjit Singh and Vichitra Singh has stated that today he will destroy the seeds of Baj Singh. He could not tell the reason why this fact is not mentioned in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C.

24. P. W. 6 is Pargat Singh. He has stated that on 14-8-1999 at about 2. 45 p. m. he was near the house of the deceased Baj Singh and Dilip Singh was also alongwith him. One jeep and car reached on the Kharnaji road and Vichitra Singh, Harjit Singh, Jagwant Singh, Bahadur Singh, Mohan Singh, Anoop Singh and Sukhdeo Singh came out of the vehicle. Vichitra Singh was armed with rifle, Harjit Singh was armed with DBBL gun, Jagwant Singh was armed with DBBL gun, Mohan Singh was armed with DBBL gun, Bahadur Singh was armed with one barrel gun and Anoop Singh and Sukhdeo Singh were armed with country made pistols. Vichitra Singh and Harjit Singh fired at Harjinder Kaur and her son and they stated that today they would destroy the seeds of Baj Singh. The fire shot by Vichitra Singh and Harjit Singh had not hit Harijinder Kaur and her child. Harijinder Kaur went inside the room alongwith her child and bolted it from inside. He has further stated that Sukhdeo Singh and Anoop Singh had also fired at him but he escaped. He has further stated that Harjit Singh and Vichitra Singh had also pulled the doors of the room in which Harjinder Kaur and her child were hidden. He has further stated that on 10- 9-1999 he was present in his house and his father was also present there. At about 7, 7-15 p. m. the police alongwith Balbir Singh came and Balbir Singh took them to his house and handed over a DBBL gun and three live cartridges to the police and he has stated that this gun was used by Jagwant Singh for killing Baj Singh and his son. The police prepared the recovery memo, which is Ext. Ka-5. He has further stated that the Investigating Officer had recorded his statement after 12 days of the occurrence. In the cross- examination he has stated that the gun which was recovered by Balbir Singh was not from the room of Jagwant Singh as he lives in another house.

25. P. W. 7 is Heera Singh. He has stated that on 14-8-1999 at about 9. 15, 9. 30 p. m. the police personnel came to his house alongwith Balbir Singh. Sri Bhati. Incharge Police Station Kithore was also amongst them and he had informed him that they had to arrest Bahadur Singh and Vichitra Singh and took him in the vehicle. The police had arrested Vichitra Singh and Bahadur Singh in his presence. He has stated that from the possession of Vichitra Singh one rifle and three live cartridges from the pocket of his kurta were recovered. He has further stated that from the possession of Bahadur Singh one gun alongwith one live cartridge were recovered and four live cartridges were also recovered from the pocket of kurta of Bahadur Singh. The police prepared the recovery memo of rifle, gun and cartridges, which is Ext. Ka-6. In the cross-examination he has stated that the police had not demanded registration book or driving licence of the motor-cycle of Vichitra Singh and he had not enquired about the motor cycle.

26. P. W. 8 is Dr. M. K. Mukherjee. He had conducted the post- mortem of the deceased. The injuries are already noted in the earlier part of the judgment. He has proved the post-mortem reports and he has stated that the deceased had died on 14-8-1999 at about 2. 30 p. m. and all the deceased had received fire-arm injuries and all the ante-mortem injuries were sufficient to cause the death of three deceased in ordinary course. In the cross-examination he has stated that in the post-mortem report of Harjit Singh which is Ext. Ka-6 he had found gases and faecal matter in the large intestines and the stomach was found empty in his opinion the deceased must have taken food before six hours of his death. The similar contents were found in the post-mortem report of Lakhvinder Singh and according to Dr. Mukherjee Lakhvinder deceased also must have taken food six hours prior to his death. In the post-mortem report of Baj Singh semi-digested food was found and in his opinion he must have taken food 3-4 hours prior to his death and in the small and large intestines gases and faecal matter were present. He has further stated that the time of death of all the three deceased could be between 12 Oclock and 4. 00 p. m. and there can be variation of six hours either way. He has stated that he had not mentioned in the post- mortem report the place of recovery of wading piece and in the dead-body of Baj Singh one big pellet was recovered and small pellet was not recovered.

27. P. W. 9 is Head Constable Kiran Pal Singh. On 14-8-1999 he was posted as a Head Moharrir at the police station Kithore. He has stated that on the basis of the report of Balvinder Singh he had prepared the chik report Ex. Ka-9 and he had registered the case in the General Diary No. 23 at 3. 30 p. m. The carbon copy of General Diary is Ext. Ka-11. He has further stated that he had prepared Ext. Ka-6 on the basis of report of Sub-Inspector V. K. Bhati under Section 25/27 Arms Act which is Ext. Ka-12. He had entered the case in the General Diary at 23. 15 p. m. and the carbon copy of the General Diary is Ex. Ka- 13. In the cross- examination he has stated that on chik report Ext. Ka-10 below the signature of C. O. Kithore date 16-8-1999 is mentioned and below the signature of Chief Judicial Magistrate 30-8 is mentioned. He has stated that special report of this case was sent on the next day due to shortage to

staff. He has further stated that on 14-8-1999 higher officers were informed through R. T. set. He has further stated that against Vichitra Singh no case under Section 30 of Arms Act was registered.

28. P. W. 10 is Sheo Raj Singh. He is constable clerk. He had registered the case Crime No. 249/99 and 250/99 under Sections 25/27 Arms Act against Harjit Singh and Mohan Singh. He had deposited the accused and the recovered articles at the police station and he had prepared the chik report Ext. Ka-14, which is entered in the General Diary at Serial No. 49 and the copy of the General Diary is Ext. Ka-15. In the cross-examination he has stated that under the signature of Circle Officer on Ext. Ka-14 date 20-8- 1999 is mentioned and below the signature of Chief Judicial Magistrate date 20-8-1999 is mentioned in the General Diary. On 18-8-1999 departure of S. S. I. Bhati is mentioned at 6. 30 p. m. and he had returned at 9. 50 p. m.

29. P. W. 11 is Constable Omvir Singh. He has stated that on 18-9- 1999 he was posted as clerk and on the basis of recovery memo Crime No. 248/99 was registered under Sections 25/27 Arms Act and he had prepared the chik report No. 156 which is Ext. Ka-16. He had entered on the General Diary No. 14 at 8. 20 a. m. and copy of the General Diary is Ext. Ka-17. He has further stated that on 10-9-1999 he had registered a case Crime No. 266/99 under Sections 25/27 Arms Act against Balvir Singh on the basis of recovery memo Ext. Ka-5. He had prepared chik report Ext. Ka-18 which was entered in General Diary No. 45 at 9. 10 p. m. and carbon copy of the General Diary is filed. In the cross-examination he has stated that in the report Ext. Ka-18 below the signature of Circle Officer no date is mentioned and under the signature of Chief Judicial Magistrate 30-9-1999 is mentioned.

30. P. W. 12 is Constable Surendra Singh. He has stated that on 14-8-1999 he was posted at the police station Kithore. He has stated that he had gone to the place of occurrence alongwith other constables. Station Officer V. K. Bhati, S. S. I. and Sub- Inspector Yogendra Singh. On the direction of Station House Officer Sub-Inspector Yogendra Singh had prepared inquest report of the dead-bodies and they were separately sealed alongwith the papers and handed over to him and Constable Vasudeo Singh for post- mortem. He had taken the dead-bodies and handed over to the doctor. In the cross-examination he has stated that he had left the police station at 3. 30 p. m. and the proceedings of inquest were concluded at about 7. 45 p. m. and the dead-bodies were brought on tractor trolley and they had taken the dead- bodies for taking them to Meerut at about 8. 15 p. m. They had kept the dead- bodies in the mortuary. They had stayed during the night in the mortuary.

31. P. W. 13 is Sub-Inspector Yogendra Singh. He was posted on 14- 8-1999 at police station Kithore. He has stated that on14-8-1999 the case was registered and the investigation of the case was entrusted to S. S. I. V. K. Bhati. At that time Sri Bhati was in Meerut and he was informed through a wireless message

about the registration of this case. He immediately reached at the place of occurrence. On the direction of the Investigating Officer he had prepared the recovery memo of 2 cartridges of 315 bore, 9 cartridges of 12 bore and 2 cartridges. He had also collected plain earth and blood stained earth from the place of occurrence and prepared the recovery memo and they were kept in boxes, which are Exts-7 and 12. He had also prepared the inquest reports on the direction of S. S. I. Bhati. The inquest report of Baj Singh is Ext. Ka-23, Challan lash and photo lash Exts. Ka-24 and 25. Letter for C. M. O. and R. I. are Ext. Ka-26 and 27. Inquest of Lakhvinder Singh is Ext. Ka-28. Photo Lash, challan lash and letter to C. M. O. and R. I. Exts. Ka-29 to 32. Inquest of Harjit Singh, Letter to C. M. O. and R. I. are Exts. Ka-33, 34, 35 and 36. All the dead- bodies were separately sealed and handed over to Constable Karan Singh. After the completion of these formalities he reached at the house of Baj Singh alongwith S. S. I. Bhati from the house of Baj Singh he had recovered one cartridge of 315 bore, four cartridges of 12 bore and prepared the recovery memo Ex. Ka-30. On 14-8-1999 he alongwith other constables and S. S. I. V. K. Bhati arrested the accused Vichitra Singh and recovered one rifle of 315 and three cartridges and from the possession of Bahadur Singh one SBBL gun and four cartridges were recovered and they were sealed, recovery memo is Ex. Ka-6 on 18-8- 1999 he alongwith SSI Bhati arrested Anoop Singh and one country made gun, two cartridges of 12 bore were recovered and recovery memo was prepared as Ext. Ka-7. On 18-9-1999 at 8. 30 p. m. accused Harjit Singh and Mohan Singh were arrested and from the possession of Mohan Singh one DBBL gun and cartridges of 12 bore were recovered and two cartridges were recovered from Bahadur Singh, one gun and one cartridge was recovered from the possession of Harjit Singh one DBBL gun of 12 bore and two cartridges were recovered from the pocket of his pant. Two cartridges were recovered and recovery memo is Ex. Ka-35. In the cross-examination he has stated that the First Information Report of this case was registered in his presence. He has stated that in column No. 1 of report of the deceased time for preparing the inquest is not mentioned and neither title of the case is mentioned in any of the inquest report and nature of the report is not mentioned in column No. 3 of the inquest report. The place of occurrence from the police station in the inquest report is mentioned as 20 km. and in the chik report this distance is mentioned as 15 km. He has denied that the dead-bodies were found in the forest and they were found at the police station in the morning. He has further denied that till the preparation of inquest report FIR was not in existence. In the challan case crime number is not mentioned because there is no column for mentioning the crime number. He has denied that in the inquest report sections of crime are subsequently added. He has further stated that he had not asked Vichitra Singh about the ownership of the rifle. He has further stated that he had demanded the licence, but he had not produced the same. He has denied that Vichitra Singh and Bahadur Singh were arrested from their house. He has denied that he had brought the rifle and gun from his house and falsely recovered the rifle of Bakshish Singh from the possession of Vichitra Singh and gun of Bakshish Singh is recovered from the possession of Mohan Singh. He has denied that the gun of Vichitra Singh was recovered from Bahadur Singh. He has denied that Vichitra Singhs rifle was brought from his house and got recovered from his son-in-law. He has further stated that he has no knowledge about the gun which was recovered from the possession of Harjit Singh whether it was licenced or not. He has denied that accused Harjit Singh was arrested alongwith his gun from the house and his arrest was wrongly shown alongwith Mohan Singh. He has stated that copies of recovery memo were given to accused persons after their arrest.

32. P. W. 14 is Sri V. K. Bhati. He has stated that on 14-8-1999 he was Station House Officer at Police Station Kithore and on 14-8- 1999 he had got registered a report in case Crime No. 244/99 under Sections 147, 148, 307, 302 IPC against Vichitra Singh and seven other persons. The information of the case he had received in police lines, Meerut where he had received the information of the case on telephone and wireless and he had left crime meeting and reached the place of occurrence where Sub- Inspector Yogendra Singh was present alongwith other constables. He had directed Yogendra Singh to prepare inquest report. He had received a copy of the chik report and FIR at the place of occurrence. Recovery of plain and blood stained earth were prepared. Cartridges were also recovered and recovery memo was also prepared. The recovery memo of plain and blood stained earth is Exts. 20 to 22. Recovery memos of cartridges recovered from the place of occurrence is Exts. 2 and 3. Site-plans are Exts. Ka-39 and 40. The dead- bodies after inquest report was sealed and sent to Meerut for post- mortem examination. He had arrested the accused Vichitra Singh and Bahadur Singh and recovered the rifle, guns and cartridges from their possessions. On 14-8-1999 he had recorded the statement of Bahadur Singh and Gurmej Singh. On 15-8-1999 he had kept the recovery memos in the case diary. On 16-8-1999 he had arrested Anoop Singh and recovered a country made pistol of 12 bore and two empty cartridges and two live cartridges and recovery memo was prepared as Ext. Ka-33. On 18-8-1999 at about 8. 30 p. m. he had arrested Harjit Singh and Mohan Singh and from the possession of Harjit Singh one DBBL gun, four cartridges and from the possession of Mohan Singh one DBBL gun of 12 bore and three live cartridges were recovered and memo was prepared Ext. Ka-38. On 20-8-1999 he had recorded the statement of witness Karnail Singh. On 23-8-1999 he had arrested Jagwant Singh. On 26- 8-1999 he had recorded the statement of Smt. Bakshish Kunwar, Smt. Harjinder Kaur, Pargat Singh and Dileep Singh. On 31-8-1999 he had recorded the statement of Gurmukh Singh, Subog Singh, Surendra Singh, Darshan Singh and Major Singh. On 2-9-1999 he had recorded the statement of witness Balvinder Singh and witness of inquest. On 11-9-1999 he had arrested Jagwant Singh and one DBBL gun and three cartridges were recovered from his possession and recovery memo is Ext. Ka-5 and he had deposited the accused and the deceased articles in the police station. On 7-10-1999 he had recorded the statement of Sub-Inspector Yogendra Singh and other police personnel and he had also recorded the statements of Karnail Singh. Balvinder Singh, Bahadur Singh, Gurmed Singh, Heera Singh and others. He had also prepared the site-plan of the recovery of arms Ext. Ka-41, Ka-42, Ka-43 and Ka-44. On 15-10- 1999 he had submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons Ext. Ka-45. The recovered arms and cartridges were sent to Ballistic Expert. The report is Ext. Ka-4. He had also recovered the Ambassador Car No. UGH 2005 used in the crime which is entered in General Diary No. 27 dated 27-1-2000. From the first place of occurrence he had recovered two empty cartridges of 315 bore which are Exts. 13 and 14. Two empty cartridges of 12 bore were also recovered which are Exts. 15 and 16. One Bhim colour empty cartridge is Ext. 17. Six empty cartridges of 12 bore of red colour are Exts. 18 to 23. Two plastic white colour caps are Exts. 24 and 25. From the second place of occurrence he had recovered one empty cartridge of 315 bore and four empty cartridges of red colour which are Exts. 26 to 30. On 14-8-1999 when he arrested accused Vichitra Singh one rifle of 315 bore No. AB 96/0587 was recovered alongwith three live cartridges of 315 bore which are Exts-31 to 34. On the same day he had arrested accused Bahadur Singh and from his possession one DBBL gun No. 3025 was recovered which is Ext. Ka-35 and four live cartridges were recovered which are 26 to 39. On 18-8-1999 Anoop Singh was arrested and from his possession a country made pistol of 12 bore was recovered which is Ext. Ka-40 and two live cartridges of 12 bore and two empty cartridges were recovered which are Exts. 41 to 44. On 18-8-1999 he had arrested accused Harjit Singh and one DBBL gun of 12 bore was recovered which is Ext. Ka-45. The number of gun is 84266 D/3, which was recovered alongwith four live cartridges of 12 bore which are Ext. 46 to 49. Mohan Singh was also arrested by him and a DBBL Gun No. 32800 A/97 was recovered which is Ext. 50 and three cartridges were recovered which are Exts-51 to 53. On 10-9-1999 Balbir Singh brother of Jagwant Singh was arrested. On his pointing out from his house a DBBL Gun No. 176791 was recovered which is Ext. 1 and three live cartridges were recovered which is Ext. 3 and two other cartridges were also recovered which as Exts. 54 to 55.

33. In the cross-examination he has stated that on 14-8-1999 he has reached at the place of occurrence around 4. 30 and 5. 00 p. m. and he has stated that at the place of occurrence only family members were present. He had admitted that in the case diary he has mentioned that at the place of occurrence no one from public was present and he called some person to become witness of the inquest. He had denied that the date the dead-bodies were recovered in the forest. He had also denied that he had shown the wrong place of the dead-bodies. He has admitted that he had not sent the plain and blood stained earth for chemical examination. He has stated that when he reached at the place of occurrence complainant Balvinder Singh was present. Gurmed Singh and Karnail Singh were also present there. But he had not recorded their statements because other formulates were going on. He had also prepared the site plan and rest of the formalities were completed by the Sub-Inspector Yogendra Singh. He has stated that in the first parcha of the case diary he had not mentioned any reason for nor recording the statement of eye-witnesses. He has stated that the family members of the deceased Balvinder and Harjit, Pargat and Dileep Singh had met him, but they were not in a position to give their statement. But this fact he had not mentioned in the case diary. He has further stated that he had not mentioned the reason for not recording the statement of family members of the deceased from 18-8-1999 to 25-8-1999.

34. P. W. 14 V. K. Bhati was recalled in this Court. He has stated that he had recorded the statement of Balvinder Singh and Gurmed Singh on 1 4-8-1999. In parcha No. 1-A he had denied that he had not recorded the statement of witness on 14-8-1999 and he had added parcha No. 1-A subsequently. He has stated that the case diary was in loose leaves. He has stated that every loose leave has a number and of correspondence number is in the case diary. First page of parcha No. 1 is started with No. 02-0063 and first parcha consists of 9 pages. He has stated that firstly 9 pages were prepared and subsequently parcha No. 1 was prepared. Parcha No. 1-A starts with page No. 020068. He has stated that he could not tell the reason how parcha No. 1-A consists of page No. 020068- 20070. The reason, which he has given is that some parchas in the case diary are not in its original place and in order to correct the paging he had changed the numbers. He has stated that statement of Smt. Baksheesh Kaur was recorded on 26-8- 1999 and prior to this she was not in a position to give statement. Statement of Gurmukh Singh he has recorded on 31-8-1999 and prior to this he could not examine him because he had gone out.

35. As regard the parcha of the case diary he has stated that parcha No. 1 was completed on 14-8-1999 prior to 12 Oclock and this parcha is Ext. 3. He was specifically put a question by the Counsel of the accused that when parcha No. 1 was completed then on the same date why another parcha was started. In reply to this question this witness had stated that he had left the place of occurrence directing the complainant and the witnesses to reach at the police station as he was going to arrest the accused persons. The complainant and witnesses had arrived at the police station. After completing the first parcha another parcha No. 1-A was started by him on the same day.

36. P. W. 15 is Sub-Inspector Shambhu Dayal. On 14-8-1999 he was posted at police station, Kithore. He has stated that on the basis of the recovery Crime Nos. 245 and 246 of 1999 under Section 25/27 Arms Act against Vichitra Singh and Bahadur Singh was registered and he had recorded the statement of witnesses, inspected the place of occurrence and they are Ext. 42. He has taken permission from the District Magistrate on 11-10-1999 for prosecution under Section 25/27 Arms Act. The sanction order is Ext. Ka-47 and 48. After completing the investigation he had submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons which is Ext. Ka-49 and 50. On 18-8-1999 he was posted at the police station Kidhor and case Crime No. 248/99 under Section 25/27 Arms Act was registered against Anoop Singh on the basis of recovery. He had investigated this case, interrogated the witnesses and prepared the site plan which is Ext. Ka-51. He had taken sanction from the District Magistrate for prosecution and sanction order is Ext. Ka-52 and after the investigation he had submitted the charge- sheet which is Ext. Ka-53.

37. In the cross-examination he has stated that the fire-arms which were recovered from the possession of Vichitra Singh and Bahadur Singh were numbered. But he has no knowledge whether they were factory made or not. During the investigation he could not find out whether the gun which was recovered from Bahadur Singh belongs to Vichitra Singh. During the investigation he could not know that the rifle which was recovered from the possession of Vichitra Singh belongs to Baksheesh Singh.

38. P. W. 16 is Sub-Inspector Satya Pal Vast. He has stated that on 18-9-1999 he was posted at police station, Kithore. On that date Crime No. 249/99 and 232/99 under Section 25/27 Arms Act were registered against Mohan Singh and Harjit Singh. He had investigated both the cases and during the investigation he had recorded the statement of witnesses and prepared site plan, which is Ext. Ka-54. On 12-10-1999 he obtained sanction for prosecution from the District Magistrate, which is Ext. Ka-55. After investigation he had submitted charge-sheet which is Ext. Ka-57 and 58. On 10-9-1999 Crime No. 256/99 under Section 25/27 Arms Act was registered against Balbir Singh. He had investigated the case, interrogated the witnesses and prepared the site plan, which is Ext. Ka-59. On 12-10-1999 he had obtained sanction for prosecution from the District Magistrate, which is Ext. Ka-60. After completing the investigation he submitted charge-sheet which is Ext. Ka-61.

39. In the cross-examination he has admitted that in the sanction for prosecution of Mohan Singh it is not mentioned that which one officer had arrested him. He has no knowledge that the fire-arms recovered from Mohan Singh remained at police station upto which date. He has no knowledge whether gun recovered from the possession of Mohan Singh was factory made or not. During the investigation he could not know whether the gun recovered from the possession of Harjit Singh was factory made or not.

40. P. W. 17 is Ram Asrey Pandey, Assistant Director, Vidhi Vigyan Paryogshala, Agra. We shall deal with his evidence in the later part of this judgment.

41. The accused persons in their statement under Section 213 Cr. P. C. have denied the prosecution allegations and according to them the witnesses have deposed against them under influence of one Baba Birsa Singh, Vichitra Singh has further stated that he was arrested by the police from his house alongwith his licenced gun and rifle. His gun was falsely planted on accused Bahadur Singh and his rifle was later on falsely planted on his son-in- law Gurmukh Singh. He has further stated that the police had also arrested one Baksheesh Singh alongwith his licenced rifle and this rifle was wrongly shown to have been recovered from him. Accused Mohan has stated that on 13-8-1999 his uncle Jagwant Singh fell ill and for his treatment he went to the house of his bua in village Maniar Kher in Punjab. He got his uncle Jagwant Singh medically treated in the hospital at Churiwala (Punjab) from 13-8-1999 to 16-8-1999. On 18-8- 1999 when he returned to his house from Punjab he was arrested by the police. Accused Harjit Singh has stated that he was not present on the spot at the time of the incident, but was present in his sasural in village Aniwala District Ferozpur, because his father-in-law Jagwant Singh had died on 1-8- 1999 and his Bhog ceremony was to be held on 13-8-1999 and he had participated in the Bhog ceremony of his father-in-law. On 18-8- 1999 after his return from Ferozpur, he was arrested by the police from his house and falsely implicated in this case. Accused Jagwant Singh had stated that on 12-8- 1999 he went to the house of his sister Kulwant Kaur in village Maniara Kher in Punjab. On 13-8-1999 he fell ill and remained confined to bed from 13-8-1999 to 16-8-1999. He was medically treated in the hospital at Churiwala (Punjab). He has further stated that his nephew accused Mohan Singh was with him. On 22-8-1999 he was falsely implicated in this case.

42. The accused persons have examined five witnesses in their defence.

43. D. W. 1 is Gurvinder Singh. He has stated that accused Harjit Singh is his brother-in-law. His father expired on 1-8-1999 and his Bhog ceremony was held on 13-8-1999. In the Bhog ceremony of his father accused Harjit Singh had participated in village, Amibala. He remained there from 13-8- 1999 to 16-8- 1999. He has filed the death certificate of his father issued by Ferozpur hospital, which is Ext. Kha-9. He has further stated that Harjit Singh had arrived in his village on 12-8-1999. He had got published card of Bhog ceremony, which is paper No. 123 Kha and the translation of the copy is Ext. 123/2 Kha. He has also filed the gun licence of his brother-in-law Harjit Singh, Paper No. 124 Kha. He has stated that Harjit Singh lives in Kila Pushgarh. His telephone bills are Paper No. 125 Kha and 125 Kha. These papers are marked as Ext. Ka-11 and 12 and the Bhog ceremony card is Ext. Kha. 10.

44. In the cross-examination he has stated that licence of Harjit Singh was given to him by his sister. He has also stated that he had no knowledge about the number of gun of Harjit Singh nor as to when this licence was issued. He has denied that the licence is not genuine. He admitted that in Bhog ceremony card the name of press is not mentioned. He has stated that the card was published by his younger brother. He has also denied that Ext. Kha.-9 is a forged document. He has also stated that he has no knowledge that his brother owns Ambassador car or not.

45. D. W. 2 is Jagir Singh. He has stated that he is a panch in village Ambal District Ferozpur Punjab. He has stated that his father expired on 1-8-1999 and his Bhog ceremony was held on 13- 8-1999. He has stated that accused Harjit Singh had participated in the Bhog ceremony and he had seen on 14-8- 1999 also. In the cross-examination he has denied that Daebo Singh is his relative. He has stated that after the arrest of Harjit Singh he had not moved any application before any authority regarding his presence in the village on the date of alleged occurrence. He has stated that his village is 500-600 miles from the place of occurrence.

46. D. W. 3 is Dr. Jarnail Singh. He has stated that he was posted in Primary Health Centre Churiwala as Medical Officer. From 13-8- 1999 to 16-8-1999 he was posted as medical officer in the District hospital. He has stated that he had examined Jagwant Singh on 13-8-1999. He brought the register of O. P. D. which indicates that the name of Jagwant Singh is mentioned at Sl. No. 984. On 14-8-1999 and 16-8- 1999 he had examined Jagwant Singh as OPD patient. He filed the copy of the certificate as Paper Nos. 140 and 141, which were in his writing and marked as Ext. Kha. 17 and 18. He identified accused Mohan Singh and Jagwant Singh whom he had examined and treated in the hospital. In the cross- examination he had admitted that there is over writing in the entry No. 985 dated 14-8-1999. He has denied that it was done with oblique purpose. He has also admitted that there is a gap of 2 lines between the dates 10-8-1999 and 11-8-1999. Similar gap is between entries of 11-8-1999 and 13-8-1999 but there is no gap in the entries of 12-8-1999 to 14-8-1999. The name of Jagwant Singh is mentioned in the last entry of 13-8-1999. He has further admitted that there is a gap between 16-8-1999 and 17-8-1999. He has denied that entry of Jagwant Singh has been falsely made on 13-8-1999 and false entries were made on 14-8-1999 and 16-8-1999. He has further stated that parentage and address of the patient is not mentioned in the register. He has admitted that colour of the ink in the entries of 14-8-1999 and 16-8- 1999 are different. He has admitted that there is cutting and over writing in the Entry 986 dated 16-8- 1999 but denied that it was not in his writing. He has admitted that in Ext. 17 parentage and address of the patient is not mentioned nor signed by the patient. In Ext. Kha. 18 thumb impression of the patient is mentioned and he has stated that this thumb impression was of Ajit Singh.

47. D. W. 4 is Bhaktawar Singh. He has stated that he recognizes accused Mohan Singh. On 14-8-1999 he had gone to the house of Bhanu Singh of his village and he met the accused there. He has stated that Jagwant Singh was sick and he enquired from him whether he has taken any medicine or not. Jagwant Singh had stated that he has taken medicine from Government hospital Churiwala. Mohan Singh also had accompanied Jagwant Singh for taking medicine.

48. In the cross-examination he has stated that he had studied urdu upto Class IV. He also stated that Brahm Singh is the real brother-in-law of Vichitra Singh and Jagwant Singh. Braham Singh was his friend. He has stated that he had not given any application to any of the police officers regarding the presence of Jagwant Singh and Mohan Singh in the village.

49. D. W. 5 is Jagtar Singh. He has stated that Indrajit Kaur wife of Mohan Singh and Bakshish Kaur wife of deceased Baj Singh are known to him. He has filed photographs Ext. Kha. 1 which was taken at the time of naming ceremony of the son of Indrajeet Kaur Ext. Kha. 2 and 4 are also of photograph of ceremony. These photographs were taken by Guru Charan Singh.

50. In the cross-examination he has admitted that he is brother- in-law of accused Jagwant Singh.

51. We have heard Sri A. D. Giri, Senior Advocate for the appellants, Sri J. S. Sengar for the complainant and learned A. G. A. , for the State.

52. The factum of death of the three accused persons namely Baj Singh, Lakhvinder Singh and Harjit Singh by fire-arm injuries has neither been assailed nor disputed before us by the learned Counsel for the appellants. From the post-mortem reports and statements of two medical officers there can be no doubt that the aforesaid deceased persons died homicidal death. However, it has to be find out how far the prosecution has succeeded in establishing its case that the said murders were committed by the present appellants at the time and place as alleged by the prosecution.

53. Assailing the finding of the trial Court learned Counsel for the appellants have argued before us that the motive alleged from the side of prosecution is very weak and inadequate and at any rate the same has not been established from the evidence on record. It was further argued that the First Information Report is ante timed and ante dated and the same was lodged after due consultation and deliberation. It was also contended that the incident had not occurred at the time and place as alleged by the prosecution. It was pointed out that stomach of two deceased namely Lakhvinder Singh and Harjit Singh were found fully empty while that of Baj Singh stomach contained semi-digested food which completely demolishes the prosecution story that the aforesaid persons were murdered on their way when they had left the house of Gurmukh Singh after taking meal. It was also argued that the presence of alleged eye-witnesses is highly doubtful. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants had they been present they would not have been spared totally untouched, if the appellants were the assailants. Their presence is further rendered doubtful on account of conflict between the ocular testimony and the medical evidence.

54. As regards motive it was submitted that Balvinder Singh has stated that accused had purchased land from Panna Lal through a fictitious sale-deed and P. W. Gurmed Singh had reported this matter to the authorities, but he could not disclose as to which authority the complaint was made. He has also admitted that there was no litigation pending between the parties. Learned Counsel further submitted that this version was neither disclosed in the First Information Report nor in the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. In the First Information Report there is a clear mention that there was enmity with regard to dispute of land between the parties. It was not necessary to disclose the detailed reasons of this enmity.

55. P. W. 2 Gurmed Singh has stated regarding complaints made against the accused persons at the police station, Kithore. He has also stated that he had moved an application against the accused to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate regarding the evasion of stamp duty while making sale transaction. He has also stated that he had made these complaints on the saying of deceased Baj Singh. The defence Counsel has also placed reliance on some photographs Ext. Kha. 1 to 4 which relate to some family function in the house of accused. In these photographs the family members of the accused Mohan Singh and the family members of Baj Singh are shown participating in the function. It is not disputed that all the accused except accused Harjit Singh, Anoop Singh and Sukhdeo Singh are closely related to the complainant party. Apart from this P. W. 4 Smt. Bakshish Kaur has also stated that there is enmity between Baj Singh and Vichitra Singh on account of dispute over some land. It, therefore, cannot be said that there was no motive for the accused persons for committing the murders in question. Moreover, in the present case we have before us direct evidence of witnesses who claim to have seen the occurrence in broad day light. It is well settled that if their evidence is found reliable and trustworthy the issue of motive looses its significance. If the murderous assault by the accused persons is established by clear and clinching evidence by the eye-witnesses, it is not necessary to investigate the motive behind such commission of offence.

56. Learned Counsel for the defence has challenged the place of occurrence. It is further submitted that the deceased were done to death in Jungle and the Investigating Officer has purposely changed the place of occurrence on the Kharanja. He has further urged that the samples of blood stained earth allegedly taken from the place of occurrence were not sent for chemical examination and no such place has been shown inside the site plan Ext. Ka-39.

57. As regards this contention, we find that the testimony of the witnesses is clear that murder took place at the Kharanja near the Dera of Gurmukh Singh. P. W. 14 V. K. Bhati has stated that he had inspected the spot and on his direction Sub-Inspector Yogendra Singh P. W. 13 took the samples of blood stained earth from the place of occurrence and prepared fard which are Exts. Ka-20, 21 and 22. If the Investigating Officer failed to send these samples of blood stained earth for the chemical examination, it was only a lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer, which does not have any adverse effect on the testimony of eye-witnesses. The Counsel for the appellants further submitted that when the Investigating Officer had arrived at the place of occurrence the dead-bodies were lying uncared, which shows that the occurrence had not taken place on the said Kharanja road. It was a case of broad day light and three persons were killed. Therefore, the absence of all the people near the dead-bodies does not lead to the inference that murders took place in the jungle and dead-bodies were shifted to the Kharanja. The absence of people from the place of occurrence may be due to the terror created by the accused. It may be pointed out that after killing three persons accused had also raided the house of the deceased Baj Singh.

58. Learned Counsel for the defence has vehemently argued that there is conflict between ocular testimony of witnesses and medical evidence. The Counsel for the defence has drawn our attention to the allegations made in the report that complainant alongwith Baj Singh, Lakhvinder Singh, Harjeet Singh and Gurmed Singh at 2. 30 p. m. were returning after taking meal. In the post- mortem report of Harjit Singh and Lakhvinder Singh their stomach were found empty while in the post-mortem report of Baj Singh semi-digested food 500 gms. was found in his stomach. According to the defence Counsel this shows that the deceased were not returning after attending Bhog ceremony as alleged by them. In the statement of P. W. 1 Balvinder Singh and P. W. 2 Gurmed Singh it is not stated that the deceased. Lakhwinder Singh and Harjit Singh had not taken their meal. It was submitted that in the statements of P. W. 3 Gurmukh Singh and P. W. 4 Smt. Bakshish Kaur it was purposely introduced in their examination- in-chief that Lakhvinder Singh and Harjit Singh had not taken food during the Bhog ceremony. According to submission of learned Counsel for the appellants this improvement was made to bring in line the medical evidence with the prosecution version. Similarly the stomach contents of deceased Baj Singh shows that semi-digested food was found in the stomach which belies the prosecution case that occurrence took place at the time alleged by the prosecution. After minutely examining the evidence of the witnesses and circumstances appearing in the case we do not find any force in this submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants. The mere fact that P. W. 3 Gurmukh Singh and P. W. 4 Smt. Bakshish Kaur had not stated before the police that Lakhvinder Singh and Harjit Singh had not taken food in the Bhog ceremony, is not very material. It was merely an omission and not contradiction. It could not be disputed that the Bhog ceremony was held at the house of Gurmukh Singh, P. W. 3. Gurmukh Singh at whose house the said ceremony was held has himself deposed in clear words that all the deceased persons and the prosecution witnesses had attended the Bhog ceremony of his wife. Similarly all the accused persons had also attended the said ceremony. He has further deposed that the incident occurred at a short distance from his house when the deceased persons and the prosecution witnesses were returning home. The main issue therefore is whether the witnesses had seen the occurrence and the incident occurred in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. It has also been clearly stated by Gurmukh Singh that Lakhwinder Singh and Harjit Singh remained busy in serving food to the persons who had come to attend the Bhog ceremony. It is also in evidence that after taking meal Baj Singh and other prosecution witnesses left the house of Gurmukh Singh. Why Lakhwinder Singh and Harjit Singh did not eat this could only be answered by the deceased persons It may be that they might be in a hurry to accompany Baj Singh and other witnesses or it may be that they might be having some other work. The fact remains that they had attended the Bhog ceremony and had left the house of Gurmukh Singh alongwith deceased Baj Singh and other prosecution witnesses.

59. Therefore, in our opinion the omission on the part of the Investigating Officer to question the witnesses as to whether the aforesaid two deceased persons had also eaten food before leaving the Dera of Gurmukh Singh, will not be sufficient ground to discard the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the incident occurred when the deceased persons and the prosecution witnesses were returning home after attending Bhog ceremony.

60. Learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that there are specific allegations that rifle was used by Vichitra Singh in the occurrence, but the post-mortem reports do not indicate use of rifle. The learned Counsel for the appellants further submitted that Injury No. 1 of Baj Singh is a gun shot wound of entry 2 cm. x 2 cm. bone deep and Injury No. 2 is an exit wound of Injury No. 1 which is 5 x 4 cm. neck cavity deep. Similarly Injury No. 3 of deceased Harjit Singh is a gun shot wound of Entry 3 cm x 2 cm bone deep and Injury No. 4 is an exit wound of Injury No. 3. We shall deal with this submission later.

61. Learned Counsel for the appellants further submitted that the First Information Report is ante-timed and ante dated and lodged after consultation and deliberation with the police. Learned Counsel for the defence has referred to the evidence of P. W. 1 Balvinder Singh. He has stated that he reached at the police station a 3. 15 p. m. Subsequently he had lodged the report at 3. 30 p. m. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that this report cannot be prepared within 15 minutes. We do not agree with this submission because the First Information Report is only of two pages. A perusal of the report indicates that natural version of the incident was written by the complainant and there is nothing improbable in preparing report within 15 minutes. The time of lodging the report is clearly mentioned in chik FIR Ext. Ka-10 and G. D. regarding registration of case Ext. Ka-11. In both these documents time of lodging of First Information Report has been mentioned as 2. 30 p. m. Ext. Ka-13 is G. D. regarding the admission of accused Vichitra Singh and Bahadur Singh in the police station. According to this G. D. entry accused Vichitra Singh and Bahadur Singh were admitted in the police station at 11. 15 p. m. on 14-8-1999 after being arrested at 9. 30 p. m. on the same day. This G. D. also contains the reference of the incident having occurred at 2. 30 p. m. which further strengthens the prosecution case that the FIR had already come into existence. The contention for the appellants that the FIR came into existence on the next day is thus, found baseless.

62. As regards the contention of the learned Counsel for the defence that the special report was not sent forthwith which also indicates that the First Information Report came into existence next day of the occurrence, we again find no substance therein. P. W. 9 Head Constable Kiran Pal Singh prepared the chik report Ext. Ka-10 and the G. D. Ext. Ka-11. He has stated that though special report was sent on the next day of occurrence due to paucity of force, but this witness has clearly stated that higher authorities were informed on R. T. set. In the G. D. Ext. Ka-11 regarding the registration of the case it is clearly mentioned that the information regarding this incident is being given to higher authorities on R. T. set and telephone. The fact that information of the present occurrence was sent to higher authorities on R. T. set and telephone on 14-8-1999 itself and of its mention in the relevant G. D. entry completely rules out the possibility of the First Information Report being ante dated.

63. In this case P. W. Balvinder Singh, P. W. 2 Gurmed Singh, P. W. 3 Gurmukh Singh and P. W. 4 Smt. Bakshish Kaur are said to be eye- witnesses of the occurrence. They have fully supported the prosecution case. The Counsel for the complainant has stated that presence of Balvinder Singh in the Bhog ceremony is not established, therefore, he cannot be present alongwith the deceased at the time of occurrence. Learned Counsel for the defence has relied on the statement of Balvinder Singh in which he has shown his ignorance about the wife of Gurmukh Singh and other family members. Learned Counsel for the defence submitted that the presence of one family member in the Bhog ceremony is sufficient. This contention has got no force as there is nothing unusual for the witness to have participated in the Bhog ceremony alongwith other family members. Learned Counsel for the defence further submitted that when the police had arrived at the place of occurrence then the dead-bodies were lying uncared for. If this witness was present he should have remained present at the place of occurrence. This argument of the learned Counsel for the defence is misconceived because he had gone to lodge the report and subsequently he had returned alongwith police to the place of occurrence and then inquest reports were prepared.

64. Learned Counsel for the defence has further submitted that P. W. 1 is the witness of inquest and the gist of the occurrence is not mentioned in the inquest report. This contention of the learned Counsel for the defence is also misconceived as the report was registered prior to the inquest report and he cannot specify the reason why the gist of the occurrence is not mentioned in the inquest report. Learned Counsel for the defence has not asked any question from P. W. 13 Yogendra Singh who had prepared the inquest as to why the gist of the occurrence was not mentioned by him in the inquest reports. P. W. 1 Balvinder Singh is reliable and truthful witness and his evidence gets full corroboration from the First Information Report, which was lodged by him soon after the occurrence. The very fact that FIR was promptly lodged completely rules out the possibility that the report was lodged after consultation and deliberation.

65. After carefully examining the evidence of P. W. 1 Balvinder Singh we find no sufficient reason to discard his testimony and in our opinion his presence at the scene of occurrence is established beyond doubt.

66. Learned Counsel for the defence has also doubted the testimony of P. W. 2 Gurmed Singh on the ground that if he had been on the spot at the time of occurrence he would not have been spared by the accused persons. The main enmity between the parties was with regard to land dispute and this witness had given the application against the accused persons and according to the learned Counsel for the defence he should have been the main target of the accused persons. The contention of the learned Counsel for the defence is not correct as he has stated in his testimony that the applications which were moved by him against the accused persons were moved at the initiation of Baj Singh. Gurmed Singh was, therefore, not the main target of the accused persons. He has stated in his statement that firing was also made towards him but he saved himself by hiding into the bushes. Learned Counsel for the defence has also submitted that participation of P. W. 2, Gurmed Singh in the Bhog ceremony is highly improbable on the ground that he had no knowledge about the family of Gurmukh Singh. This witness is brother-in-law of deceased Lakhvinder Singh and his participation in the Bhog ceremony cannot be said to be unusual. He is also cited as an eye-witness in the First Information Report which was promptly lodged by the complainant and he had gone alongwith the complainant to lodge the report at the police station. His presence at the time of occurrence is fully established and he in our opinion is a truthful and reliable witness.

67. As regard P. W. 3 Gurmukh Singh learned Counsel for the defence has challenged his presence at the place of occurrence on the ground that he has not been cited as an eye-witness in the First Information Report so his evidence should not be given any credence. We have already noted above the fact that Bhog ceremony was held on the date of occurrence at his house which was attended by accused and the deceased persons and witnesses cannot be doubted. The Dera of Gurmukh Singh from the place of a occurrence has been shown at a distance of 70-80 paces in the site plan Ext. Ka-39. In his evidence this witness has stated that when he heard the sound of shots he came at his door witnessed the occurrence. Since this witness has not moved to the scene of occurrence in the presence of complainant and remained present at the door of his house. It was quite likely that the First Informatant might not have noticed that Gurmukh Singh had also witnessed the occurrence. He had mentioned the name of other witnesses who were present near him as an eye-witness of the occurrence. Therefore, no capital could be made out of the fact that name of this witness does not find mention in the First Information Report which was lodged within minutes of the occurrence. The fact that Bhog ceremony was held in his house is mentioned in the First Information Report. This witness is an independent witness. Having no enmity whatsoever against the accused persons nor had any affinity with the deceased persons or first informant. Since on his evidence both the parties had gone to attend the Bhog ceremony of the wife of this witness he has closed to both the parties. At no stretch of imagination this witness could be dubbed as interested witness. The witness has explained this delay by stating that he remained admitted in a Nursing Home at Delhi on account of his illness due to jaundice and he remained admitted there for about 15-20 days. He became very weak on account of the said illness. This explanation to us is found acceptable. The main fact that his statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. was recorded 18 days after the date of occurrence, will not render his evidence susceptible. In our opinion he is a star witness of the prosecution and his evidence inspires full confidence.

68. P. W. 4 Smt. Bakshish Kaur is the widow of deceased Baj Singh. Her testimony has been challenged by the defence on the ground that in the First Information Report it is not mentioned that she accompanied the complainant and the deceased while they were returning from the Dera of Gurmukh Singh after the Bhog ceremony. This contention is not correct because it is clearly mentioned in the First Information Report that she had gone to attend the Bhog ceremony. She has stated in her statement that at about 2. 30 p. m. she was returning from the dera of Gurmukh Singh alongwith her husband and other members and she was following her husband and two sons at a distance of 25 paces. The police after arrival at the place of occurrence had prepared the site plan and in the site plan the place of hiding of Smt. Bakshish Kaur has been shown by letter f in the bushes. This place was shown in the site plan on the pointing out of the first informant Balvinder Singh and if Balwinder Singh had not specifically mentioned in the First Information Report that Smt. Baksheesh Kaur was also returning home after Bhog ceremony that will not make any difference. The contention of the learned Counsel for the defence is that her statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. was recorded after 12 days of the occurrence. Therefore, it must be held that she was not an eye-witness of the occurrence. This argument has got no force. The Investigating Officer has explained this delay as he has stated that the ladies were not in a position to give any statement due to death of her husband and two sons and if there is any delay in recording her statement that can be attributed as a lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer as her presence is shown in the First Information Report and site plan.

69. Learned Counsel for the defence has further submitted that P. W. 4 Smt. Bakshish Kaur has stated that when the deceased fell on the ground she had grappled with the dead-bodies and her clothes were soaked with blood and she had also broken her bangles. This submission also does not carry any weight. The statement of this witness was recorded after about 12 days. If her clothes were blood stained the Investigating Officer should have asked her about her clothes and so far as the broken bangles is concerned this was not in the knowledge of the Investigating Officer that this witness had broken her bangles on the spot. Her evidence is assailed by the learned Counsel for the appellants on the ground that she in her statement has stated that accused Vichitra Singh was armed with rifle and he had fired three shots and all of them had hit Baj Singh, but the post-mortem report of Baj Singh does not support this part of her statement. From the evidence on record it transpires that this witness was following the deceased persons at a distance of about 20-25 paces, and had seen that all the accused persons encircled the three deceased persons and started making indiscriminate firing and she ran and hide herself behind the bushes. It is, thus, apparent that she witnessed the site from a distance. She is a rustic women and therefore, it cannot be expected that this witness would be able to justify precisely as to how many shots were actually fired by each individual accused and how many injuries were sustained by each deceased particularly when indiscriminate firing was being made by as many as seen persons. The above referred two statements appear to have been made by her on her imagination and for this reason alone her testimony cannot be discarded as untrustworthy.

70. The second occurrence relates to the firing made by accused persons on Smt. Harjinder Kaur and her son aged about 6 months. P. W. 5 Smt. Harjinder Kaur and P. W. 6 Pargat Singh are the witnesses to this occurrence. Smt. Harjinder Kaur is the wife of deceased Harjit Singh and mother of six months old Pervender Singh. Pargat Singh P. W. 6 is the nephew of the deceased Baj Singh. According to the allegations of the prosecution after killing three persons the accused had reached at the Dera of Baj Singh and they fired on the six months child of Lakhwinder and Harjinder Kaur and stated that they have to kill the progeny of Baj Singh. Smt. Harjinder Kaur, P. W. 5 has stated that when the accused came she was standing in the courtyard of her house and her child was in her arm. Vichitra Singh came out of the Jeep and Harjit Singh and others came out from the car. Vichitra Singh had exhorted and he alongwith Harjit Singh had fired, but the fire did not hit her. She rushed into the room alongwith her child and bolted the same from inside. Thereafter, she had also heard the sound of two fires.

71. Learned Counsel for the defence stated that the testimony of Smt. Harjinder Kaur cannot be believed because it is not possible for her to escape the injuries of firing.

72. We have gone through the testimony of this witness and there is nothing improbable in her statement. A perusal of the site plan indicates that when firing was made, she was only 10 paces from the room in which she had bolted herself. The firing was made from a close distance and luckily she could escape unhurt. The other contradictions in her statement are of minor nature, which are not sufficient to disbelieve this witness. This witness Harjinder Kaur had informed about the occurrence to the Investigating Officer. The defence Counsel also stated that Pargat Singh had stated that Vichitra Singh, Baj Singh and Harjit Singh had exhorted, but this contradiction is of a very minor nature and it is not sufficient to disbelieve them.

73. The main feature of these two witnesses is that all the accused persons had reached there after committing the first occurrence and they had fired at Harjinder Kaur and her child and both the witnesses have clearly deposed about the incident. The defence Counsel has also pointed out that both these witnesses had not stated that Mohan Singh had fired from his own gun, but according to Ballistic Report empty cartridge marked EC-3 alleged to have been fired from the gun of accused Mohan Singh and the witnesses have not stated about firing by Mohan Singh. This fact has got no force as both these witnesses have stated that when Harjinder Kaur had bolted her inside the room she had heard he sound of two more fires. These witnesses have also stated that amongst the accused persons, who had raided at the Dera of Baj Singh, Mohan Singh was also there alongwith guns.

74. On the basis of above discussions we are of the opinion that prosecution has fully proved the first as well as second occurrence.

75. As regards the recovery of arms from the accused persons the rifle which is alleged to have been recovered from appellant Vichitra Singh belongs to one Baksheesh Singh and the DBBL gun which is alleged to have been held by Mohan Singh also belongs to that of Baksheesh Singh and the SBBL gun that has been shown to have been recovered from the possession of accused Bahadur Singh belongs to accused Vichitra Singh. Surprisingly Baksheesh Singh has not been prosecuted under Section 30 of Arms Act as his rifle was recovered from accused Vichitra Singh and Mohan Singh. It is admitted that Baksheesh Singh was also brought to the police station alongwith Vichitra Singh, but the reasons best known to the investigating agency he is not prosecuted. The Investigating Officer had recovered DBBL gun, Ext. 1 and three live cartridges on the pointing out of appellant Balbir Singh from his Dera at time of his arrest he had stated hat the gun was used by accused Jagwant Singh and the Sessions Judge had held that it cannot be concluded that the said gun and cartridges were recovered from the exclusive possession of accused Balbir Singh. Balbir is rightly acquitted of the charges framed against him under Sections 25/27 Arms Act.

76. As regards the recovery of rifle, Ext. 31 and three cartridges of 315 bore, Exts. 32, 33 and 34 from the possession of appellant Vichitra Singh and regarding recovery of gun, Ext. 35 and four live cartridges, Exts. 36, 37, 38, 39 from the possession of accused Bahadur Singh, P. W. 13, Sub-Inspector Yogendra Singh, P. W. 14, Investigating Officer V. K. Bhati and P. W. 7 Heera Singh had given statements. The police has arrested Vichitra Singh and Bahadur Singh while they were coming on a motor-cycle with weapons. Both these persons were arrested and on their search a rifle, Ext. 31 and cartridges 32, 33 and 34 were recovered from the possession of Vichitra Singh. Vichitra Singh had not produced the licence of the rifle. From the possession of Bahadur Singh police had recovered a gun Ext. 35 and four live cartridges Exts. 36 to 39. He had also not produced any licence. After the recovery a case was registered against the accused persons under Sections 25/27 Arms Act.

77. Learned Counsel for the defence has submitted that the gun which is alleged to have been recovered from Bahadur Singh belongs to Vichitra Singh and rifle belongs to one Baksheesh Singh. P. W. 1 Balvinder Singh on page 14 of his statement has admitted that Baksheesh Singh was also arrested by the police, but he was let off. The rifle which is alleged to have been recovered from the possession of Vichitra Singh belongs to Baksheesh Singh. P. W. 15 Sub-Inspector Shambhu Dayal who had investigated the case had shown his ignorance about the licence of rifle whether this rifle belongs to Baksheesh Singh or not. This is highly improbable that he could not find out whether the gun recovered from the possession of Bahadur Singh belongs to Vichitra Singh. Vichitra Singh had also produced licence of his fire-arm to the Investigating Officer. It is admitted that both Vichitra Singh and Bahadur Singh were arrested together and the Sessions Judge has rightly acquitted him of the charges under Sections 25/27 Arms Act. Similarly Vichitra Singh is shown to have rifle of Baksheesh Singh and it is admitted by the prosecution witnesses that Baksheesh Singh was also present at the police station. The Sessions Judge after acquitting the appellant Bahadur Singh has wrongly considered Vichitra Singh under Sections 25/27 Arms Act. He is also acquitted under Section 25/27 Arms Act.

78. Anoop Singh was arrested alongwith fire-arm and ammunition. He was arrested on 18-8-1999 at 6. 55 a. m. On his personal search one country made pistol, Ext. 40 and two live cartridges and two empty cartridges Exts. 41 to 44 are alleged to have been recovered from his possession. Regarding the arrest of accused Anoop Singh and the recovery memo, Ext. Ka-37 except Sub- Inspector Yogendra Singh, P. W. 13 and the Investigating Officer V. K. Bhati, P. W. 14 there is no public witness to support these recoveries. In the recovery memo it is mentioned that none of the witnesses from the public was ready to become the witness. Hence the non-examination of any public witness in support of this recovery does not create any doubt. The recovered pistol, Ext. 40 was sent to Ballistic Expert and according to the Ballistic Expert Report Ext. Ka-4 disputed cartridges EC. 25 and EC. 26 were found to have been fired from the country made pistol Ext. 40. The Sessions Judge has rightly held that it is proved that accused Anoop Singh was arrested at the place and time as alleged by the prosecution and two disputed cartridges recovered by the police from the place of murders were found to have been fired from this country made pistol, Ext. 40 and the Sessions Judge has rightly convicted him under Sections 25/27 Arms Act.

79. Appellants Harjit Singh and Mohan Singh were arrested and fire-arms and ammunition were recovered from their possession. They were arrested on 18-8-1999 at 8. 30 p. m. and on their personal search one DBBL gun, Ext. 45 and four live cartridges of 12 bore 45 to 49 were recovered from the possession of accused Harjit Singh and from the possession of accused Mohan Singh a DBBL gun, Ext. 50 and three cartridges Exts. 51 to 53 were recovered and joint memo of these recoveries is Ext. Ka-38. P. W. 13 Sub-Inspector Yogendra Singh and P. W. 14 Investigating Officer V. K. Bhati has proved the factum of arrest of these accused and the recoveries from them. The appellant Harjit Singh has stated that DBBL gun is his licenced gun and he had filed licence Ext. Kha. 11 and the Sessions Judge has rightly

acquitted him under Section 25 Arms Act on the ground that the gun was sent to Ballistic Expert for examination and according to the Ballistic Expert report three disputed fired cartridges, EC. 2, EC. 4 and EC. 13 were found to have been fired from his gun. Hence, the use of gun in the murders is proved and he is rightly convicted under Section 27 of Arms Act.

80. As regard the gun, Ext. 50 alleged to have been recovered from the possession of Mohan Singh belongs to Baksheesh Singh and Baksheesh Singh is not prosecuted in this case nor he is prosecuted under Section 30 Arms Act. There is nothing on the record that this gun was being held by the accused Mohan Singh without consent and knowledge of the licence holder Baksheesh Singh. Hence, no charge under Section 25 Arms Act is proved against him. He is rightly held guilty by Sessions Judge under Section 27 Arms Act.

81. The three appellants Harjit Singh, Jagwant Singh and Mohan Singh had produced defence witnesses in support of their plea of alibi. D. W. 1 Gurmender Singh is brother-in-law of accused Harjit Singh, D. W. 2 Jahangir Singh have been produced and in documentary evidence the death certificate, Ext. Kha. 9 regarding the death of father-in-law of accused Harjit Singh and the card of his Terhvi, Ext. Kha. 10 have been proved by D. W. 1 Gurmender Singh. He has also claimed that Harjit Singh remained in the village amiwala (Punjab) from 13-8-1999 to 16-8-1999 to attend the Bhog ceremony of his father. D. W. 3 Jahangir Singh has stated that Bhog ceremony of Joga Singh was held on 13-8- 1999 and accused Harjit Singh had participated in the ceremony.

82. As regard the card relating to Bhog ceremony of Joga Singh, Ext. Kha. 10 D. W. 1 Gurmender Singh had admitted that there is no mention of the name of the press where the card was printed. He has also stated that he had obtained this card from his house and he did not get it printed. He had shown his ignorance about the press from where it was printed. He has also stated that the journey by train from Amibala to Meerut takes about 10-11 hours. He has also admitted that he had not moved any application to any authority that his brother-in-law Harjit Singh is falsely implicated. D. W. 2 Jahangir Singh has stated that Bhog ceremony of Joga Singh was performed on 13-8-1999. He had also not moved any application to any of the authorities regarding the presence of Harjit Singh in village Amibala on the date of occurrence. Both the witnesses are close relative of Harjit Singh and belongs to the village of Gurvinder Singh.

83. Apart from this Bhog ceremony of Joga Singh was held on 13-8- 1999 at 2. 30 p. m. and present occurrence took place on 14-8-1999 at 2. 30 p. m. and according to the defence witness train journey takes about 10 to 11 hours. The plea of alibi appear to be an after thought and cannot be relied upon in the presence of eye-witness account.

84. Appellant Jagwant Singh and Mohan Singh had also taken plea of alibi and they had produced D. W. 3, Dr. Jarnail Singh and D. W. 4 Bakhtawar Singh in this regard. D. W. 3, Dr. Jarnail Singh has stated that he was Medical Officer in S. R. C. Hospital of Churiwala (Punjab) from 13-8-1999 to 16-8-1999. On 13-8- 1999 one Jagwant Singh aged about 46 years had come to his hospital for treatment. He had again attended the hospital on 14-8-1999 and 16-8-1999. He was suffering from Diarrhea. He had produced the register of the hospital in which at Sl. No. 984, the name of Jagwant Singh is entered. The extract of the register is Ext. Kha. 16, OPD Card is Ext. Kha-17 had Medical Certificate from 13- 8-1999 to 16-8-1999 is Ext. Kha. 18. This witness could not identify Jagwant Singh. He has put his hand on accused Mohan Singh. He has also admitted overwriting in the entry of 985 and he has also stated that overwriting in the registry was not done by him. He has also admitted irregularities in the register. He has also admitted that in the out door ticket no identification of the patient is done. He has also admitted that in the medical certificate the thumb impression was obtained by his assistant Ajit Singh. The testimony of the witness is rightly rejected by the Sessions Judge by cogent reasons.

85. D. W. 4 Bakhtawar Singh has stated that on 14-8-1999 at about 9 a. m. he had seen appellants Jagwant Singh and Mohan Singh at the house of Jhand Singh in village Mammukhera, District Ferozpur (Punjab). He has further stated that on that day at about 9. 30 a. m. both accused had gone to Government Hospital for taking medicines. This witness has admitted that he is real brother-in- law of appellant Vichitra Singh and Jagwant Singh. He has also admitted that he did not move any application to any of the authority regarding the alibi of Jagwant Singh and Mohan Singh. He has stated that on 17- 8-1999 he had inquired from Jhand Singh as to whether he had moved an application regarding the implication of accused Jagwant Singh and Mohan Singh, but surprisingly both these appellants were arrested after 17-8-1999 and it is a false statement. Appellant Mohan Singh was arrested on 18-8-1999 and Jagwant Singh on 23-8-1999. The testimony of this witness is rightly rejected by the Sessions Judge.

86. In view of the discussions made above we are of the opinion that P. W. 1 Balvinder Singh, P. W. 2 Gurmed Singh, P. W. 3 Gurmukh Singh and P. W. Smt. Baksheesh Kaur have fully proved the prosecution case as regard to the first incident and P. W. 5 Harjinder Kaur and P. W. 6 Pargat Singh have fully proved the second incident regarding the raid on the house of deceased Baj Singh and firing at Harjinder Kaur and her son Parvender. These witnesses have fully proved the prosecution case.

87. Learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently argued before us that as far as participation of Vichitra Singh in the occurrence in question is concerned the same is highly doubtful because this appellant is said to be armed with rifle of 315 bore, but none of the deceased persons sustained any rifle injury as is clear from the evidence of the Ballistic Experts examination in the trial Court and re- examination before this Court. Sri Ram Asrey Pandey, P. W. 17 is Ballistic Expert. He has proved his

report as Ext. Ka-4. Before the trial Court this witness stated that he had received sealed bundles with a letter of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut. The seals were intact and tallied with specimen seal. The said bundles contained seven sealed bundles and two specimen seals. Out of the seven bundles one bundle contained two bundles of which one contained 4 cartridges of 12 bore and one empty cartridge of 315 bore. The second bundle contained 9 empties of 12 bore, two empties of 315 bore. Out of remaining six bundles one bundle had one 315 bore rifle and two live cartridges and one missed cartridge of 315 bore. The second bundle had one 12 bore SBBL gun and two live cartridges. The third bundle contained one country made pistol of 12 bore, two cartridges of 12 bore and two empties of 12 bore. The fourth bundle had one 12 bore DBBL gun and three live cartridges. The fifth bundle contained one SBBL gun and three live cartridges. The sixth bundle contained one DBBL gun of 12 bore and five live cartridges. He stated that he had fired cartridges from the fire-arms sent to him. According to his opinion disputed cartridge EC-2 was fired from DBBL Gun No. A. 4230 D/3 and EC-3 cartridge was fired from DBBL Gun No. 328 00- A/9, EC-4 and EC-13 were fired from Gun No. A-4200 D/3, EC-5, EC- 15 and EC-16 were fired from 315 bore rifle No. AB 9605687, EC-6 was fired from DBBL Gun No. 32800 A/9. EC- 25 to 26 were fired from country made pistol marked 3/2000. EC-4 was not proved to have been fired from SBBL gun marked 2/2000. Similarly EC-5, EC- 7, EC-8 were not found fired from the recovered fire- arms. EC-10 and EC-12 were fired from other 12 bore fire-arm. Similarly EC-14 was also not found fired by DBBL gun marked 4/2000. In the cross- examination he has stated that rifle which was received for the examination was of. 315 bore and gun was of 12 bore. The circumference of the bullet of 315 bore rifle is 8 mm. or 0. 8 cm. He has further stated that the cartridges which contain only one shot have a diameter of about 1. 7 cm. He has further stated that the recovered rifle was a standard weapon. Injury caused by this weapon normally will be of a size of 1 cm. x 1 cm. One shot cartridge of 12 bore causes injuries normally of the size of about 2 cm. x 2 cm. Injury No. 1 of Baj Singh and Injury No. 3 of Harjit Singh could be caused by one shot of 12 bore. Remaining injuries of all the three deceased could be caused by fire-arms of 12 bore. He has further stated that the size of the injury depends on the distance and location of the body where it hits. He has further stated that Injury No. 3 of Harjit Singh and Injury No. 1 of Baj Singh were from a very close range. This witness was recalled by this Court and his statement was recorded wherein he has stated that the bullet of standard cartridge fired from 315 bore rifle has a diameter of 8 mm. The normal size of the wound will be around 1 cm. x 1 cm. In this case the Injury No. 1 of Baj Singh was 2 cm. x 2 cm. and Injury No. 2 its exit wound was of the size of 5 cm. x 5 cm. He opined stated that considering the size of the injury there was a greater possibility that this injury could be caused by 12 bore gun rather than a rifle. He has further stated that if injury is caused from a close range, in that position the size of the entry wound could also be increased. The possibility of firing by 315 bore cannot be ruled out. The single shot ball of 12 bore is normally of 1. 7 cm. in diameter and Injury No. 1 can be caused by this shot. Injury No. 3 of Harijit Singh is of 3 cm. x 2 cm. He has stated that this injury can be caused by 12 bore shot. He has further stated that the pellets which were recovered from the body of Harjit Singh were not of 315 bore cartridge. The pellets which were recovered from the body of Lakhvinder Singh consisted of one big pellet and 14 small pellets and none of them was of 315 bore. He has stated that the distance of bullet shot and the bullet fired by 315 bore depends upon the distance of target, the part on which it is fired, direction of the victim, velocity of the projectile and shape of the projectile. He has further admitted that the shot fired by rifle causes slightly bigger entry wound, but he cannot tell what will be the exact size. On being specifically asked whether Injury No. 1 was caused by bullet shot, he has stated that on the basis of exit wound he cannot tell whether shot was fired from bullet or not. He has further stated that if a shot is fired from a very close range then velocity of the gas can increase the size of entry wound. In the cross-examination he has stated that if the shot is fired from close range only in that stage gases can enter into the wound and increase the size of entry wound. If the shot is fired from the distance of 3 cm. the effect of gas increases the wound. The gases enter into wound in contract shot. He has further stated that the size of the wound depends upon the velocity of the bullet. The surface area of the bullet striking point.

88. In the cross-examination made before the trial Court he stated that the rifle which was sent for Ballistic examination was of 315 bore while gun was of 12 bore. Country made pistol was also of 12 bore. It may be mentioned that this rifle was the same which was allegedly recovered from Vichitra Singh and was alleged to have been made use of in the firing incident. The Ballistic Expert further stated that the diameter of the bullet of cartridge which is used in 315 bore rifle is 8 mm i. e. , 0. 8 cm. He further stated that some times cartridges which are used in 12 bore weapon have only one shot ball whose diameter is around 1. 7 cm. He opined that if a standard cartridge is fired from a standard fire-arm of 315 bore in that event the size of wound would be normally 1 cm. x 1 cm. He admitted that the rifle of the present case is a standard weapon. I has also been opined by him that if a cartridge having one shot ball is fired from a 12 bore fire-arm the size of wound would normally be of the size of 2 cm. x cm. According to him it was possible that Injury No. 1 of deceased Baj Singh and Injury No. 3 of deceased Harjit Singh could be caused by a cartridge of 12 bore looking to their size. He also opined that it was possible that all the ante-mortem injuries of the three deceased persons were caused by cartridges of 12 bore having pellets.

89. To a Court question this witness stated that size of fire-arm wound also depends on the distance from which the shot was fired. It also depends upon as to on which part of the body the shot had struck. In further cross-examination done by the defence Counsel this witness further stated that all the empty cartridges which sent to him were standard cartridges.

90. Finding ambiguity in his statement this Court recalled Ram Asrey Pandey and he was thoroughly cross-examined. He has clearly stated that if the standard cartridge is fired from a 315 bore rifle whose bullet has a diameter of 8 mm. in that event normally the size of entry wound would be 1 cm. x 1 cm. In the present case Injury No. 1 of the deceased Baj Singh was an entry wound of the size of of 2 cm. x 2 cm. and its exit wound had a size of 5 cm. x 4 cm. He clearly expressed his opinion that looking to the size of this wound there was a greater possibility that this injury was caused by fire-arm of 12 bore using a cartridge having one shot ball rather than by rifle. He of course added that a definite opinion cannot be expressed merely on the basis of the size of wound. Before this Court the sealed envelope (sic) containing pellets which were recovered from the dead-body of Baj Singh at the time of autopsy was opened. After seeing the size of the pellet the Ballistic Expert expressed a definite opinion that there was a remote possibility of Injury No. 1 of Baj Singh having been caused by the said pellets. He further admitted that this pellet could not be of a rifle cartridge.

91. Similarly with regard to Injury No. 3 of deceased Harjit Singh whose size is 3 cm. x 2 cm. this witness expressed the opinion that looking to the size of the wound he was of the same opinion as has been given in relation to Injury No. 1 of Baj Singh i. e. , there was hardly any possibility of the said injury having been caused by rifle. This witness was thoroughly cross-examined both by complainants Counsel and the defence Counsel and this witness at different places gave wavering opinions.

92. In any view of the matter, we have also examined this aspect of the matter and a great doubt is created in our mind if in fact any of the deceased persons sustained rifle injury. In this view of the matter as an abundant caution we deem it just and proper to extend the benefit of doubt to accused Vichitra Singh. It is of common experience that innocent persons are also nominated in addition to real culprits due to enmity. Even as per the own case of the prosecution, Vichitra Singh was the leader of the defence party. Therefore, the possibility of his having been nominated falsely on account of long standing enmity cannot be ruled out. Though we have come to the conclusion that both the incident had occurred at two different places as alleged by the prosecution, but we find it most unsafe to hold appellant Vichitra Singh guilty and he is acquitted of the offences charged for.

93. So far as the recovery of rifle from the possession of Vichitra Singh is concerned admittedly it was a licenced rifle of Baksheesh Singh. He was brought to the police station but he was not prosecuted and we have already given benefit of doubt to Vichitra Singh under Section 25/27 Arms Act. The trial Court had already acquitted Bahadur Singh and both Vichitra Singh and Bahadur Singh were arrested by the police and in view of the enmity between the parties without doubting the prosecution case and without disbelieving the witnesses we are of the opinion that as a precautionary measure Vichitra Singh be given benefit of doubt.

94. In the result Criminal Appeal No. 1721/2001 filed by Vichitra Singh is allowed. The judgment and order dated 24-5-2002 passed by the Sessions Judge so far as it related to Vichitra Singh are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offences charged for. He is in jail. He shall be released forthwith unless wanted in any other case. Reference made by the learned Sessions Judge for confirmation of death sentence is rejected.

95. Criminal Appeal No. 1829/2001 filed by appellants Bahadur Singh, Mohan Singh, Harjit Singh, Anoop Singh, Sukhdeo Singh and Jagwant Singh is dismissed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the trial

Court are upheld. They are in jail. They shall continue to remain there to serve out their respective sentences.

96. The appeals are decided accordingly.

Appeal decided accordingly.